Romney vs. Obama Debate - Part II on Tuesday - let's score it!

[Kirkland Laing]

Ermm.. is there some reason why you think I have to answer all your half-assed questions? I get it Kirkland, you're a BO supporter, good for you, now kindly fuck off.

I was just wondering whether you actually knew anything about the things you're opining on or whether you were just ranting away.

I see, why don't you just keep on wondering.

Don't need to keep wondering.

[Kirkland Laing]

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

You know who is REALLY cutting access to higher education



.....the colleges & universities are by price gouging

It's a free market for tertiary education out there, lots of colleges starting up and even some closing down. People pay more for education because good schools can charge a premium, and they can charge it mainly due to income inequality.

[VictorCharlie]

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

[El Kabong]

"One guy will do a bad job (Obama) and one guy will do even worse (Romney)" and when you post that you are cheering for Obama to win and I can tell you Obama has no idea about what he's doing, he wasn't ready for the job (still isn't), and all of that just flies over your head because of your irrational dislike of Mitt Romney.


Also your graph can show whatever it's just a correlation which doesn't show cause and effect so I could show a graph like this...

and point out how fucking ridiculous correlations can be Mr. Graph Man

[El Kabong]

Some news today...Fromer Chrysler Chairman and life long Democrat supports?? ROMNEY
Lee Iacocca endorses Romney for president - Conservative News

Bad news for the President
President Barack Obama on Benghazi attack: 'If 4 Americans get killed, it's not OPTIMAL' | Mail Online
It just proves the man isn't fit for office.


Oh and the new polls out...Romney 51% Obama 45%......looking great for you Kirkland, looks like a solid win for you and Obama.

[Xwetie]

No comments!

[Youngblood]

What I enjoy about this election, beyond appreciating the spectacle that it is, is that if Romney manages to win it's no big deal personally. We are pretty happy here in Canada. Things are good in the most educated, free health care country on the planet. I mean, even Romney was pining in the last debate how you all should be more like us with our only 15% business tax etc.

And if Obama wins (again), well, the amount of EPIC BUTTHURT will be legendary.

Kind of a no lose situation.

[VictorCharlie]

There won't be any noticeable difference no matter who wins. I think the butt hurt will be more epic in a Romney win than vice versa. It is always a big kick in junk when a party's incumbent loses and this guy gets such an epic pass from the media that the meltdown will be monumental. If it is going bad on election night I'll be watching MSNBC all night to watch Matthews, Maddow and Shultz cry like bitches.

[Youngblood]

lol oh I know. While the whine may sound different depending on party, it will be no less loud or hilarious. I noticed it quite a bit from the Dems at 538 with his polling, whom at one time had the election as a nearly 90% for Obama, until the first debate. Was a lot of gloating going on, and then the first debate hit and the numbers and probabilities began tanking, as up till then they were all laughing at Repubs and their disbelief. Well, they immediately began questioning his methods and saying he was now nuts because it no longer gave them the comfort they once had. Turned into the very creatures they were mocking.

Anyway, i'm just trolling a bit, having some fun as the emotions begin to boil to the surface with the date closing in. Our political system is no better here. It's rather, kinda boring as hell.

[VictorCharlie]

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

[TitoFan]

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

[Mars_ax]

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

Isn't that pretty much how American politics has always been? It's the 2 party system, one side wins and the other side is pissed off for 4 years.

[TitoFan]

The GOP will do a lot of hand wringing and doom/gloom spiels if they lose but I think much of the party realizes what a weak field they had to choose from and that Romney isn't really a strong conservative. The President is much more of a messiah type icon for the Dems. The truth is if Romney wins he does it more due to the lack of success of Obama than his own potential. Pretty similar to how the current President got elected off of the anti-Bush momentum.

It IS sad how lately the elections seem to be more about getting "so-and-so" to lose, rather than "yeah, he's pretty good... but my candidate's better." Sad reflection of the times we live in.

Isn't that pretty much how American politics has always been? It's the 2 party system, one side wins and the other side is pissed off for 4 years.

Yeah, but ideally it should be about wanting your guy to win more than your wanting the other guy to lose.

[Kirkland Laing]

"One guy will do a bad job (Obama) and one guy will do even worse (Romney)" and when you post that you are cheering for Obama to win and I can tell you Obama has no idea about what he's doing, he wasn't ready for the job (still isn't), and all of that just flies over your head because of your irrational dislike of Mitt Romney.


Also your graph can show whatever it's just a correlation which doesn't show cause and effect so I could show a graph like this...

and point out how fucking ridiculous correlations can be Mr. Graph Man

The price of gasoline fell off a cliff due to the world economy falling off a cliff. Because the economy crashed -- millions of layoffs and redundancies/bankrupcies worldwide -- the global demand for oil crashed as well. There was suddenly massive excess supply, with tankers full of crude parked up all over the world unable to offload because the supply chain was fully stocked. There isn't anything remotely controversial about what I just wrote, it's just what actually happened.

And anyway, why is it surprising to you that you were wrong about gasoline and Obama was right? You're consistently wrong about everything, you demonstrate every time you post that you don't have a fucking clue about any of this stuff so why is it a shock to you that you were wrong again?

[Kirkland Laing]

"Education.

Romney’s budget plan could cut more than $115 billion from the Department of Education over the next 10 years, cutting K-12 and special education funding by nearly $5 billion and leaving nearly 10 million students with $1,000 less each in Pell Grant funding. He plans to voucherize America’s public education system while offering no plan to fix failing public schools. And how does this create jobs over the next four/eight years exactly?"

The DoE should be done away with. The federal government should have no role in education and the states should do a better job of creating their own revenue for education. You can champion spending all you want but we have had a meteoric rise in education spending but our standardized test scores have stagnated. Money is not the problem. I am skeptical of anyone actually doing a voucher program but it is exactly what we need. We need education decisions put in the most local hands. Parents, school boards and at the most the state education departments. Create competition and creativity in education systems and give parents vouchers so that they can choose for themselves where their children go to school. The Democrats are horribly wrong in this area. The rich will always make sure their kids go to a good school but a voucher system is the only way impoverished and middle class families can do this. If the Democratic party was actually for helping the middle class and poor they would support vouchers whole heartedly but instead they take big payoffs from teacher unions.

Over the next century it's going to be the high infrastructure, high education countries that do the best. Cutting access to higher education is the single worst thing Romney could do but he's going to do it.

Education is not a federal role. States fund higher education and the price has gone out of control leading to large of amounts of student loan debt due to the states reducing funding but more importantly b/c of the obscene amount of subsidizing the federal government does. Remove the subsidies and the problem corrects its self.

The federal government subsidises higher education?